From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4708BE9 for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 17:19:09 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from zinan.dashjr.org (zinan.dashjr.org [192.3.11.21]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 606A0AD for ; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 17:19:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:a45d:823b:2d27:961c]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C7EA238A230B; Thu, 6 Apr 2017 17:18:37 +0000 (UTC) X-Hashcash: 1:25:170406:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org::j4iFK4bVPK78r2wV:a+uB4 X-Hashcash: 1:25:170406:chjj@purse.io::ZKl+fvYipD67h01m:cbnBO From: Luke Dashjr To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org, Christopher Jeffrey Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2017 17:18:35 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/4.9.16-gentoo; KDE/4.14.29; x86_64; ; ) References: <20170405165405.GA28519@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20170405165405.GA28519@gmail.com> X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201704061718.35638.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Extension block proposal by Jeffrey et al X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2017 17:19:09 -0000 On Wednesday, April 05, 2017 4:54:05 PM Christopher Jeffrey via bitcoin-dev wrote: > There's understandable confusion about this, but this proposal is not > meant to be a BIP. Oh? If this was not meant to be a Bitcoin Improvement Proposal, perhaps you should clarify somewhere what altcoin you are proposing it for. As it stands, it certainly did read much like it was meant to be a BIP, and apparently many others thought so as well. Admittedly, the bitcoin-dev ML isn't the place for altcoin discussions, and I'm not particularly interested in spending my time aiding altcoins, so I'll just end the conversation here until someone re-proposes something similar for Bitcoin. Sorry for confusing the nature of your work, Luke